One of the jurors in the Martha Stewart trial gloated that her conviction was “a victory for the little guys who lose money in the market”.
Whether or not the government made a valid case for obstruction of justice, etc., I’m completely puzzled by this remark.
Month: March 2004
Separating Church and State
Someone suggested this in print a couple of days ago, and I think it’s a great idea: separate the institution of “marriage” as a religious sacrament from “civil union” as a legal relationship.
It seems to me that the current debate mixes secular concerns with religious convictions. As a member of the intelligentsia in an old Jules Feiffer cartoon intoned following a scatalogical exchange: “Let us define your terms”.
I think the government has no business giving “marriage” licenses. “Marriage” is a religious sacrament. We don’t ask government to play a regulatory role in any other event associated with a religious observance, for example, baptisms or Bar/Bat Mitzvahs.
We DO – and quite properly so – expect government to regulate and adjudicate contractual obligations between people. The legal and tax ramifications of adults living together in a committed relationship are a legitimate government concern. The emotional and spiritual aspects are, frankly, none of government’s business.
Why not, then, separate the terms marriage and civil union, leaving one to the church and one to the state.
The government would continue to grant some form of recognition of committed unions, making people eligible for applicable rights and responsibilities within civil law.
Marriage would continue to have a religious meaning appropriate to the beliefs and traditions of the people involved. Furthermore, religious leaders would have the same authority they have now, to conduct marriage ceremonies for particular couples, or not, based on their own convictions.
No pun intended, but I think this entire rancorous “wedge” issue would disappear if these two concepts were de-coupled.
And you wouldn’t even need a constitutional amendment to do it.
Hear, Hear
For the fifth year, China has issued a call to the United States to mend our own lousy human rights record before critcizing theirs.
According to an AP story in Fox News, “The Chinese report said the United States ‘should take its own human rights problems seriously … “and stop its unpopular interference with other countries’ internal affairs under the pretext of promoting human rights.'”
The report from Beijing specifically criticized the US for its treatment of working people, women, children and the elderly. It described the US as a “crime-ridden” society which continues to discriminate against minorities, and it commented on the number of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of US military action.
Coming within a week of Greenspan’s assault on Social Security and the Frontline special on the war in Iraq, it’s tough to argue with Beijing’s logic.
I’m not saying our Federal government is wrong to have gotten rid of Saddam or to protest the persecution of the Falun Gong and other prisoners of conscience in China.
The fact is, Washington generally doesn’t set a great example for the rest of the world. With all its wealth, privilege and power, it should.
So Much for Education as a Solution
Apologists for offshoring say – with frustratingly non-specific frequency – that the “solution” is more education and training for workers whose jobs have gone overseas.
This is a canard: according to an article on CNN.COM, “In January, for example, there were more unemployed workers 25 or older with college degrees than there were unemployed workers without high school diplomas, according to the latest Labor Department data.”
Another article in today’s New York Times online edition talks about the elmination of even MORE of the already pathetically few programs for Gifted and Talented public school students as a result of the ludicrous “No Child Left Behind” Federal government policy.